North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

[no subject]

  • From: Terry Gardner
  • Date: Mon Feb 12 10:24:40 1996

>From list-admin@merit.edu Mon Feb 12 02:13 EST 1996
Return-Path: list-admin@merit.edu
Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by ec-mail.bellsouth.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA01899; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 02:13:21 -0500
Received: from Bill.Simpson.DialUp.Mich.Net (pm001-04.dialip.mich.net [35.1.48.53]) by merit.edu (8.7.3/merit-2.0) with SMTP id BAA18366 for <nanog@merit.edu>; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 01:16:27 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 05:05:02 GMT
From: "William Allen Simpson" <bsimpson@morningstar.com>
Message-ID: <4820.bsimpson@morningstar.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
cc: Robert Du Gaue <rdugaue@calweb.com>
Subject: Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd)
Content-Type: 
Content-Length: 

> From: "Craig A. Huegen" <c-huegen@quad.quadrunner.com>
> It's a Catch-22.  To provide the multi-homed, reliable services that many
> successful providers offer their customers, you need your own IP space.
> If the InterNIC isn't handing out blocks of routable size, you can't
> exactly have the most flexibility with your links.
>
No circularity about it.  First, you need customers.  Second, if you
already have enough customers, you get your own IP space.

Until then, you get a small chunk out of somebody else's bigger IP space.

Them's the current rules.  Now, as I noted in my earlier message, I have
long advocated that _NOBODY_ gets their own address space, and they
_only_ get addresses through the Exchanges where they are connected.

But, the rest of the IETF didn't go along with that idea.  IPvB for
sure, someday.


> A good point, but I, as a customer, am looking for a provider which is
> stable already; I'm not going to sign up to a service which says "we'll
> become multi-homed and fully accessible just as soon as we get X
> customers".  I've seen others sign up for services which promise
> this--you find they go down quickly because they tend to not meet the X
> customer line.
>
So have I.  That's another good reason not to give a chunk to such a
provider in the first place.


> You have to offer services that people want, with good quality, before
> you can expect many customers to sign up.  If you need X customers before
> you can provide those services, then you end up in the Catch-22 loop again.
>
What's the problem?  If you are small, you compete with the other little
folks.  Demonstrate your quality.

You had better not falsely advertise that you are large.  Good way to
get sued for breach of contract.


> Not every ISP has the investment capital to immediately run high-speed
> links to every NAP in the nation.

There seems to be this misconception -- that there is some _right_ to
make money off the Internet without much capital investment.

If they cannot meet the barrier to entry, then they deserve to go out of
business.


> But, that aside, are your customers
> going to use your service if they know that the Y% of people on the net
> using SprintLink are going to be unable to reach your network?
>
I hope not.

Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu
          Key fingerprint =  2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3  59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2